$STATIC_HEADER_TOP
  <title>Description of the Scriftboc</title>
$STATIC_HEADER_BOTTOM
   <div id="main">
     <div id="header"><h2 style="margin-right: 1.5em;">Description of the <span
style="font-style: italic;">Scriftboc</span> & indices</h2></div>
     <div id="text">
     <br/>
      <P><font face="arial" size="+1">
<a href="char4sbc.html">Table 1</a>: shows the sequence of chapters in the 3 manuscripts.<br>
<a href="char5sbc.html">Table 2</a>: canon finder: links chapter numbers to manuscripts; also correlates the manuscripts' chapters with Spindler's edition.<Br> 
<a href="char3sbc.html">Table 3</a>: lists Latin sources and/or parallels for <u>Scriftboc</u> and <u>Canons of Theodore</u>.
      
      
      <p>
       Following a guide to the text's <a href="txhdsbc.html#form">form and content</a>, you will find a list of <a href="txhdsbc.html#manuscripts">manuscripts</a>, a discussion of the probable <a href="
       txhdsbc.html#date">date</a> of the text and its <a href="
       txhdsbc.html#sources">sources</a>, and a <a href="txhdsbc.html#bib">bibliography</a>.
       </p><br/>

     <h3 style="font-size: 20pt; color: #626C9B; font-weight: bold; position: relative; top: -1em; letter-spacing: .10em; width: 100%; border-bottom: double 3px #626C9B; "><a name="form">Form and Content</a></h3>

<p> 
        The 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
     is found in three manuscripts and is organized differently in each. Some form of the <span
style="font-weight: bold;">OE Introduction</span> is found just before the <span
style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> in each manuscript.
MS X (Junius 121) is the longest, with 27 chapters; this manuscript incorporates the <span
style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> into the fourth book of the <span
style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span>, an arrangement found only
in this manuscript. MS S (Corpus 190) and MS Y (Laud 482) are both shorter (there are 41
chapters in MS S and 37 chapters in MS Y). No other Anglo-Saxon
     penitential shows so much variation in surviving copies.
      </p>
      <P>The 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
     has been known as the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti</span> 
     since it was edited by Benjamin Thorpe in 1840; this title served for
     Robert Spindler's edition of 1934, the only critical edition of the text. The title falsely
suggests 
     that the text was attributed to Egbert, archbishop of York (d. 766) and pupil of the
Venerable
     Bede (d. 735). Egbert may have been the compiler of a Latin penitential which is among
the
     sources of the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>,
     although he was not, as a chapter heading in MS S (Corpus 190) falsely maintains, the
translator of the Old English text. This heading is as follows:<dir>
HER ONGINNAD &ETH;ISSE BOCE CAPITULAS &ETH;E WE HATA&ETH; SCRIFTBOC. &ETH;AS CAPITULAS ECGBYRHT ARCEBISCEOP on 
eoforwic awende of ledene on englisc þæt þa ungelǽredan hit mihton þe eð understandan· (p. 366)</br>
Here begin the chapters of this book that we call "scriftboc." Egbert, archbishop of York, 
translated these chapters from Latin into English so that the unlearned might more easily understand them.
</dir>
No other manuscript of the Scriftboc attributes the text to Egbert. Doubts about his authorship go back at 
least to F. W. H. Wasserschleben, who argued in 1851 that the text (which he knew only in a Latin translation) 
could not be as early as Egbert's era (pp. 24-25). Others who have examined the matter agree. As Spindler 
remarked, if Egbert did translate a penitential, it is very strange that he did not translate the Latin 
text credited to him (p. 125). The compiler or translator of the Scriftboc did not rely heavily on the 
Latin <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential</span> of Egbert, which could have been known either 
directly (there is a tenth-century Exeter copy of the handbook, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 718; 
see Frantzen, <span style="font-weight: bold;">The Literature of Penance</span>, 131n34, and Spindler, 24n1) 
or through intermediate collections. In 1983, hoping to reduce confusion between Latin and vernacular 
documents, I renamed the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Confessionale</span> Pseudo-Egberti as the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
(<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Literature of Penance</span>, pp. 133-134). This is a 
penitential of the tenth century, not the eighth, found in eleventh-century manuscripts; since it was 
written in the vernacular rather than in Latin, and since it is anonymous, the text is best known by the title used in the Corpus manuscript:  
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>.
</p>
      <br/>
      <h3 style="font-size: 20pt; color: #626C9B; font-weight: bold; position: relative; top: -1em; letter-spacing: .10em; width: 100%; border-bottom: double 3px #626C9B; "><a name="date">Date</a></h3>
      <p>The 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> is almost certainly earlier than two other penitentials, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span> and the
<span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Handbook</span>. None of the sources of the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>
     is as late as the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential of Halitgar</span> (Halitgar died in 829), the major source of the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span>. The <span
style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> supplies canons for book four of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span>, which in turn
supplies canons for the <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Handbook</span>. The relationship of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> to 
another text, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Canons of Theodore</span>, is less certain (see below). Spindler
was probably not correct in suggesting that the sources of the 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>
     were handbooks of the eighth-century English church rather than the ninth-century
continental church. But all the materials from which the
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
     could have been known in England before the developments leading to the mid-century
"Benedictine reform."
      </p>
      <p>It is worth noting the lexical parallels between the
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>
        and other texts listed in Wenisch's study of Anglian vocabulary. There are frequent links
between this penitential and the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Durham Ritual</span>, 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lindisfarne Gospels</span>, 
        and glosses to the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Rushworth Gospels</span>, 
        all texts from the second half of the tenth century. But there are also parallels to the
vocabulary of translations from King Alfred's period
        (the Old English version of Bede's 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Ecclesiastical History</span>; 
        the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Dialogues of Gregory</span>; 
        the Old English 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Martyrology</span> 
        among them); and those 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Vercelli</span> 
        and 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Blickling Homilies</span> 
        with relatively early dates. The
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        shares vocabulary with Anglian texts of both the first and second half of the tenth century;
hence it is possible that the oldest form of the text may date from before
        mid-century.
      </p> 
       <br/>

       <h3 style="font-size: 20pt; color: #626C9B; font-weight: bold; position: relative; top: -1em; letter-spacing: .10em; width: 100%; border-bottom: double 3px #626C9B; "><a name="manuscripts">Manuscripts</a></h3>
        <p>
       There are three manuscripts of the 
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>:
       <ul style="list-style-type: none; padding-left:10px; font-size: 15px;">
         <li>
           <span style="color: red">S&nbsp; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 190, Part B, s.
XI<sup>med</sup>, XI&sup2; Exeter (Ker 45B, Gneuss 59); pp. 387-413</span>
         </li>
         <li>
           <span style="color: red">X&nbsp; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121, s.
XI&frac34; Worcester (Ker 338; Gneuss 644);</span>
         </li>
         <li>
          <span style="color: red"> Y&nbsp; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 482, s.
xi<sup>med</sup>, Worcester (Ker 343; Gneuss 656).</span>
         </li>
       </ul>
     </p>
     <p>
       The differences in content among the three manuscripts may be correlated with their
presentation of the 
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>, 
       including the use of incipits. MS X contains chapter numbers and Latin titles for each
chapter; MS S numbers 
       the chapters but contains no headings save for a single, important exception:  S06.00.00
translates a 
       corresponding chapter heading in Latin in MS X, suggesting that MS S was copied from
a version of MS X with headings either in
       Latin (which were translated in the process) or in OE. MS Y contains neither numbers
nor headings.  This information may 
       reflect the organizational pattern each scribe had in mind or may reflect the scribe's
exemplar. Such an index at the start of a 
       long collection of administrative texts might have aided the "searchability" of the
manuscript; MS Y, short and relatively unified in
       purpose, would not have needed such a feature.
       </p>
      <p>
        The 
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>
     is unusual in that the three manuscripts contain many
     variants beyond the lexical variants often found in late Anglo-Saxon texts. MS X is
one-fourth
     longer than MS S and one-third longer than MS Y. Whole chapters in MS X are missing
in MSS
     SY, although MSS SY omit different chapters. MS X contains approximately 205
penitential
     tariffs, some with as many as a dozen parts. MSS SY omit about 40 of these canons, or
about
     20% of them, but MSS SY do not omit the same material or always present shared
material in the
     same way. There appears to be no clear pattern to explain the omissions in MSS SY of
material in
     MS X; the differences among the MSS are
     further described under "Manuscripts" below.
      </p>
      <p>
        Certain material is missing in both MSS SY:  a chapter on the baptism of infants (X07), part
     of a chapter on sponsorship in baptism (X08), and a chapter on the degrees within which
     marriage was not permitted (X09). MS S is, in addition, missing chapters on the
celebration of the
     mass (X21), the eucharist (X22), and unclean food (X23 and X26, parts). Omitted are
chiefly
     liturgical subjects, and this is perhaps a clue to the clientele for which this version of the
     <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
     was designed. MS Y is missing  parts of the first and third chapters, on
     fornication; another chapter on marriage within degrees (X11); a chapter on sexual
cleanliness
     (X12); a chapter on the rights of children (X13); parts of two chapters on sexual acts in
marriage
     (X14, X15), an entire chapter on homicide (X17), and parts of two chapters on the Mass
(X21,
     X22, but small parts only). Omitted are chiefly subjects related to marriage; again, this could be an important clue to the purpose of this particular version of the text
(although
     the omission of an entire chapter on homicide seems remarkable and is not, presumably,
related to
     the omissions concerning marriage). Finally, MSS SY arrange the material in a different
sequence
     from that found in MS X, although the sequence in MSS SY is substantially the same.
      </p>
       <p>
       Two conclusions about the manuscript tradition and affiliations of MSS XSY are clear. 
MSS XSY represent a single tradition in 
       which MSS SY derive from MS X; they are not directly descended from it, however, but
from a version of MS X, now lost, in which the 
       chapters of MS X were rearranged into the sequence followed by MSS SY. In this lost
version of MS X, parts or all of chapters 
       7, 8, and 9 were omitted and certain chapters were relocated (including chapters 1, 4,
and 10). 
       However, MSS SY derive from different versions of that lost version of MS X. MS S
can be traced to a descendent in which 
       chapters 21, 22, parts of 23 and 26, and most of the concluding chapters were removed.
MS Y can be traced to a descendent in which the
       concluding chapters were intact, but chapters 11-15 and 17 were missing. Beyond these
assertions a close textual analysis of MSS XSY of the 
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
       might well disclose more detailed relationships.
       </p>
       <br/>



       <h3 style="font-size: 20pt; color: #626C9B; font-weight: bold; position: relative; top: -1em; letter-spacing: .10em; width: 100%; border-bottom: double 3px #626C9B; "><a name="sources">Sources</a></h3>
       <p>
        There is no single known source for the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>, 
        although a variety of Latin penitentials supply parallels (as opposed to precise textual
correspondences). In this respect the
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> is unlike both the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span>, 
        three books of which translate parts of the Latin penitential of Halitgar of Cambrai, and
the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Handbook</span>, 
        parts of which derive from the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">OE Penitential</span>. 
        Spindler's conclusion that the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        is chiefly derived from the two-book form of the penitential of Theodore seems valid.
But the relation of this Latin text to the
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>
        cannot be interpreted, as Spindler attempted to do, as an indication that the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        descended directly from the late-seventh-century text. The penitential of Theodore
existed in many versions, and Spindler was not able to establish a single
        version as that which informs the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>  
        A Latin exemplar for the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        has not been found; the particular combination and sequence of texts in the 
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        resembles no family of Latin texts. Nor can we be certain that the
        <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
        derived exclusively from Latin texts; it is possible that this penitential was compiled from
an assortment of both Latin and vernacular texts. The Latin parallels
        provided in this edition are, in the main, those listed by Spindler; they are parallels not
direct sources.
       </p>
       <p>
         Spindler calculated source relationships in minute fashion. He claimed that the
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      derived 45% of its material from the genuine (two-part) 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential of Theodore</span>, 
      18% from the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential of Egbert</span>, 
      12% from the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential of pseudo-Cummean</span>, 
      10% from one of the penitentials attributed to Bede, 13% from two texts in the
"Theodoran" tradition (7% from the
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Canones Gregorii</span> 
      and 6% from the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Capitula d'Acheriana</span>), 
      and 2% from the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Bigotian Penitential</span>. 
      Regarding the penitentials attributed to Bede and to Egbert in particular, however, his
statistics cannot be relied on, for these texts were known in various forms, 
      in some of which they existed as a single texts attributed to Bede. In addition, the
"Theodoran" materials (
      <span style="font-weight: bold;"> Penitential</span> 
      of Theodore, 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Canones Gregorii</span>,
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Capitula d'Acheriana</span>
      ) share many sections, so it cannot be determined with absolute certainty which of these
texts the compiler(s) of the
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      drew from. Spindler's claim that the sources indicated the "Englishness" of this text must
also be questioned, since it 
      is very likely that the texts were known to the translator(s) of the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> in continental rather than English
exemplars.
       </p>
       <p>
         We can compare the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      to the penitential known as the
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">CTH</span> 
      to see how these two texts render the same Latin source.
       </p>
       <p>
         <span style="font-weight: bold;">Canons of Theodore</span> 
         B65.02.02 reads:
         <dir>
           &thorn;onne gif wer &thorn;riwa wifa&eth; o&eth;&eth;e wif &thorn;riwa ceorla&eth;,
        o&eth;&eth;e gyt ma, f&aelig;ste IV ger and &thorn;a hwile &thorn;e he lifige,
f&aelig;ste
        Wodnesdagum and Frigdagum and &thorn;a &thorn;reo &aelig;f&aelig;stenu forga
fl&aelig;sc;
        and ne syn hi na &thorn;eah ged&aelig;lde, gif hi on rihtgesinscipe gegaderode syn.
</br>
If a man is married three times, or a woman (weds a man
three times), or even more times, they must fast for 4 years and, as long as they live, they must
fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, and during the other fasting periods forgo meat. And
nevertheless they are not to be separated if they are united in a proper marriage.   
      </dir>
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      X09.04.0 reads:
      <dir>
        &thorn;riddan wifes ceorl f&aelig;ste heora &aelig;g&eth;er twegen dagas on wocan
and
        &eth;reo &aelig;festenu fl&aelig;sces &thorn;&aelig;t hi nan ne etan.
</br>
 If a man has a third wife, both of them must fast two days
each week, and during the 3 40-day fasting periods neither one of them may eat meat.
      </dir>
      Both translate the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Penitential of Theodore</span> 
      1.14.3:
      <dir>
        Trigamus et supra, id est, in quarto aut quinto vel plus, VII annos IIII feria et in VI; et in
        tribus XLmis abstineat se a carnibus; non separentur tamen. Basilius hoc judicavit; in
canone autem IIII annos peniteat.
      </dir>
       </p>
       <p>
         This is but one of several sections in the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      that were translated both more clearly and more fully by the author of the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">CTH</span>. Accuracy and completeness in translation
is not evidence for dating the text in any but an evolutionist paradigm 
      (that is, there is no reason why a later translation is necessarily better than one done at an
earlier period). But in
      this and other cases it appears that the translator of the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      loosely paraphrased material rather than translated it fully and sometimes misunderstood
it.
<p><a href="char3sbc.html">Table 3</a> elaborates on the sources of
the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> in relation to those of the <span
style="font-weight: bold;">CTH</span> and that also contains the text of the probable Latin
sources of the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span>.
       </p> 
       <br/>
       <h3 style="font-size: 20pt; color: #626C9B; font-weight: bold; position: relative; top: -1em; letter-spacing: .10em; width: 100%; border-bottom: double 3px #626C9B; ">Manuscript tables</h3>
       <p>
         Two tables are available to give you an overview of how the 
      <span style="font-weight: bold;">Scriftboc</span> 
      is arranged in each manuscript.
       </p>


<a href="char4sbc.html">Table 1</a> is an index of chapters. The chapters of this text occur in a
different order in each manuscript. Junius 121 is the longest version of the text and has been used
as the base for
the numbering of the canons; hence the folio sequences for the other two manuscripts are out of
order (the table follows the order of Junius). Certain chapters in Junius occur in partial form in
the other manuscripts; in those cases only the first occurrence of material from that chapter is
noted in the table. In these cases, * marks a chapter in MS S or Y whose canons are found in
more than one place.</p>
<p><a href="char5sbc.html">Table 2</a>, more detailed, is an index of chapters by manuscript.
Certain chapters in Junius occur in partial form in 
the other manuscripts; in those cases only the first occurrence of material from that chapter is
noted in the table. <p><a href="char3sbc.html">Table 3</a> elaborates on the sources.</p>
     </div>
     <div id="header" style="border-top: double 3px lightyellow;"><h2 style="margin-right:
1.5em;"><a name="bib">Bibliography</a></h2></div>
     <div id="text">
      <p>
        <dir>
          Raith, J., ed. 
          <span style="font-weight: bold;">Die altenglische Version des Halitgar'schen Bussbuches
(sog. Poenitentiale Pseudo-Ecgberti)</span>. 
       Bibliothek der Angels&auml;chsischen Prosa 13. Hamburg, 1933. Repr. with new
introduction, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
       B&uuml;chgesselschaft, 1964. 
        </dir>
     <dir>
       Spindler, R., ed. 
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Das altenglische Bussbuch (sog. Confessionale
Pseudo-Egberti)</span>.
       Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz, 1934. The standard edition.
     </dir>
     <dir>
       Thorpe, Benjamin. ed., 
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Ancient Laws and Institutes of England</span>. 
       2 vols. London, 1840, 2:128-69. Prints a Latin translation of the text, based on MS S, as
"Confessionale Ecgberti." However, the Latin is not found in Corpus 190; there is no medieval
Latin translation of this work.
     </dir>
     <dir>
       Wasserschleben, F. W. H., ed.  
       <span style="font-weight: bold;">Die Bussordnungen der abendl&auml;ndischen Kirche
</span>.
       Halle, 1851; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- U. Verlaganstalt, 1958. Reprints
       (from Thorpe) the Latin translation of the text, based on MS S (but see note above under
Thorpe).
     </dir>
      </p>
    </div>
   </div>
   </td></tr></table>
$STATIC_FOOTER